HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 89-18; Cazadero Meadows; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (3)City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NO77CE OF DETERMINATION
County Clerk December 19, 1989
County of San Diego
Ann: Mail Drop C-11
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on December 19, 1989, approved the following
project:
Project Title: CAZADERO MEADOWS HDP 89-18
State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
Telephone
Project Address/Location: 2704 Cazadero Drive
Project Description: Hillside Development Permit for a single family residence.
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project and has
made the following determinations regarding the above described project:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
The Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: CITY OF
CARLSBAD
3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of this project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
,r
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILtER
Planning Director
DN:lh
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2704 Cazadero Drive/north side of Cazadero Drive
west of Corintia Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit for single family residence
proposing 2,930 cubic yards of fill.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: December 8, 1989 ___ _
MICHAEL J. H^LZMILSER
CASE NO: HDP 89-18 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Ken Long
PUBLISH DATE: December 8, 1989
DN:af
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION:
west of Corintia Street.
2704 Cazadero Drive/north side of Cazadero Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit for single family residence
proposing 2,930 cubic yards of fill.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: December 8, 1989
CASE NO: HDP 89-18
APPLICANT: Ken Long
PUBLISH DATE: December 8, 1989
DN:af
MICHAEL J. H^LZMII^ER
Planning Director
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. HDP 89-18
DATE: December 5, 1989
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Cazadero Meadows
2. APPLICANT: Ken Long
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 527 N. Hwv. 101 "B"
Solana Beach. CA 92075
(619) 481-7866
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit for a proposed single
family residence.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment
appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis
for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect
on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this
determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial
evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the
environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings
"YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears
at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular
attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would
otherwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig)
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X_
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features? X_
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site? X_
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X_
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality? X_
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X_
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X_
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply? X_
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? X_
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X_
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object? X_
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X_
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? X_
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? X_
HUNAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? X
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? X_
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? X_
20. Increase existing noise levels? X_
21. Produce new light or glare? X.
-3-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig)
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X_
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
-4-
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area? X_
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? X_
25. Generate substantial additional traffic? X
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking? X.
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? X_
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? X_
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X_
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view? X_
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? X_
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES YES NO(sig) (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory. X_
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) X_
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.) X_
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X_
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Physical Environment:
1-4. Earth; 2,930 cubic yards of imported fill are proposed to be
utilized in the grading operation to create a level building pad
and driveway. This will not result in unstable earth conditions
being created, changing of unique physical features, create
erosion, or cause modifications to any water bodies. The proposed
amount of grading per acre is within the acceptable range
specified by the Hillside Development Ordinance.
5-6. Air; The proposal will not significantly cause negative impacts
to air quality or affect air movement.
7-8. Water Resources; The project will not significantly change the
flow of water or affect the quantity or quality of surface water
as the approved plan will adequately handle drainage from the
site.
9. Natural Resources; The site has been disturbed by prior grading.
No significant natural resources will be impacted.
10. Energy Consumption; The project is not large enough to have a
significant impact.
11. Archaeological/Paleontoloqical/Historical; No structures exist
on site and the immediate vicinity has been previously developed
with no significant discoveries.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
12-16. Plant Life/Animal Life/Agriculture; The site was previously
disturbed and is in an area that has been substantially built
out. The project will not decrease the amount of acreage of a
prime agricultural crop.
17. Land Use; The proposed single family residence is consistent
with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the
site.
18-19. Public Utilities and Services; Public utilities exist within the
right-of-way adjacent to the project and services are provided
to properties in the vicinity at this time.
20-21. Noise and Light or Glare; The project is not of a large enough
scale to produce significant noise impacts and is setback an
adequate distance from adjacent properties so as to reduce the
possibility of creating light or glare impacts onto adjacent
properties.
22. Risk of Upset; The type of use proposed will not utilize
hazardous substances other than those sold for household use at
retail establishments.
-6-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
23. Population; The density of development proposed is within the
limits specified by the General Plan Land Use Map.
24. Housing; The project will help reduce the need for additional
housing.
25-29. Transportation/Circulation; The project is estimated to generate
10 average daily vehicle trips per day and all required parking
is provided onsite. Access is provided to the site by a fully
improved public street.
30. Emergency Response Plans; The single dwelling unit proposed will
not interfere with emergency response plans.
31. Aesthetics; The project site slopes down below street level,
therefore, it will not obstruct any scenic vista.
32. Recreation; The project will cause only a small demand for
recreational facilities which will be provided for pursuant to
the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6.
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS;
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project consists of one single-family residence. No phased
development of the project is possible due to its size.
b) The dwelling unit is located in the central area of the site and
will not be constructed on slopes greater than 25 percent,
therefore, alternative site designs would not be superior from
the aspect of environmental impacts.
c) The proposed residence meets building setback and height
requirements in addition to all zoning ordinance requirements,
therefore, the scale of development appears to be appropriate for
the site.
d) The project site is zoned for single-family residential uses and
all street improvements are in place to accommodate the proposal.
Adjacent uses are single family residences.
e) The area is designated for single-family residential development
on the General Plan Land Use Map. Development at some future
time only postpones the eventual use of the site. Public
facilities presently exist to serve the site.
f) The project site is designated by the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance for the proposed use.
g) The site is appropriate for a single-family residence. The no
project alternative would only transfer development to another
site possibly where public facilities do not presently exist to
accommodate the use.
-8-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
December 5. 1989
Date Signature
i
Tiate
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
DN:af
-10-